tK Fred.Olsen Renewables)

fodFiiPKiv SGB,^^* -•J "*-'*'•' yl/ ~-—^^^&rnm£it%a en i » » 1 1 it " *I P ^

Forth & Tay Offshore Wind Developers Groupc/o 40 Princes StreetEdinburgh

EH2 2BY

Date: 11 August 2010

Re: Consultation for "Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Draft Plan for Offshore WindEnergy in Scottish Territorial Waters: Volume 1 - Environmental Report"

Dear Sir/Madam

The Forth and Tay Offshore Wind Developers Group (FTOWDG) was formed, in association with TheCrown Estate, by the offshore wind developers in the outer Forth and Tay region of Scottish waters.These developers are Fred Olsen (Forth Array), Mainstream Renewable Power (Neart na Gaoithe),SeaEnergy Renewables (Inch Cape) and Seagreen (Round 3 zone 2). The purpose of FTOWDG is topromote collaborative discussion about development of offshore wind in this region. Therefore, inaddition to any responses from individual developers, FTOWDG considers it appropriate to provide acollective response to the aforementioned consultation.

Please note: the Bell Rock Offshore Wind Farm is no longer to be developed and is no longer part ofthe FTOWDG and should also be removed from the Draft Plan.

This response has been limited to those key points that FTOWDG considers important at the regionallevel. Further commentary on the Strategy Environmental Assessment (SEA) and draft Plan will beprovided in individual responses.

Overall, FTOWDG is supportive of the Scottish Government's commitment to undertake a Plan andSEA and accompanying Appropriate Assessment (AA) and we believe that it is important theseprocesses are carried out in a robust manner. We appreciate the level of time that has beencommitted to preparing the SEA and supporting documents. These will provide the basis forScotland's emerging offshore wind energy development, especially in the short term (2020).

The comments presented below are intended to indicate where FTOWDG considers the Draft SEAcould be amended to provide the required level of robustness for adoption by the ScottishGovernment.

1. We consider that the SEA and draft plan inappropriately blurs the boundary between projectlevel Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the national level SEA process. This has ledto site specific assessments of individual sites, particularly within Sections 8 and Appendix8.2, which are not appropriate to an SEA and are the realm of EIA EnvironmentalStatements.

It is inappropriate to determine the significance of site specific impacts without full details ofthe projects and the receiving environment. This is why developers undertake scoping ofissues before going through a detailed EIA process. As a result of this bottom-up approach todetermine the high-level national assessment, it is possible that the conclusions of the SEAwill be incorrect and misleading. This potential conflict with the site specific EIA processesmay bias or preclude the findings within the ES and could result in onerous implications for

IS. Fred.Olsen RervewablesAM x r-J&Energy

* IH f W»Bl t f reeitdevelopers. Furthermore, the AA will be carried out on the Plan1. If the AA uses the sameapproach, our concern is that it may be pulled into site specific assessments due to thedegree of reference to these assessments within the SEA. This would not be the role of theSEA AA and as thus should be avoided.

Overall, FTOWDG feel that this concentration on the site specific level of development is notappropriate for the SEA. We suggest it is replaced with a regional assessment in order toprovide the "high level perspective and focus on significant environmental effects at astrategic level and key environment features that may be affected at a Scotland-wide level"(pages 8 and 9 of the SEA).

2. Following on from point 1, FTOWDG questions whether the "alternative options" presentedin Section 7 of the SEA are appropriate to the aim of the SEA. The purpose of the draft plan isto provide "a broader framework for development that considers capacity from a nationalperspective" (page 2 of the SEA). Although the short-term options are based on the existing10 Scottish Territorial Water (STW) sites (now 9 following withdrawal of Bell Rock) and themedium term options are based on the 30 sites identified in the draft Plan - these sitesthemselves are not the high-level strategy per se but are rather the detail of the plan.Consideration should be given to a more strategic definition of 'Alternative Options' to avoida site specific focus. With this in mind, and as stated above, it would be more appropriate toput the alternative options in the context of the Plan for national capacity. To this end, theUK Offshore Energy SEA provides a useful example of how to deal with appropriatealternatives: i.e. 1. Not to offer any areas for leasing/licensing; 2. To proceed with a leasingand licensing programme; and 3. To restrict the areas offered to leasing and licensingtemporally or spatially.

3. The first strategic mitigation measure states "...there may be a requirement to removefurther options from the Plan on the basis of the findings of a strategic level HabitatsRegulations Appraisal (HRA)." This statement gives FTOWDG great cause for concern. As theSEA has reviewed the "alternative options" at the site level, the statement thereforesuggests that the HRA will be targeted at the site level. Therefore, FTOWDG concludes thatthis statement is suggesting that specific sites may be removed from the short (or medium)term plan. As stated in points 1 and 2, we consider that the SEA has inappropriatelyreviewed the "alternative options" and it would also be inappropriate to undertake the HRAat the site level.

4. FTOWDG consider that the SEA should be focussing on strategic level mitigation rather thanmitigation appropriate at the site specific level, particularly as in some cases discussion ofproject-level mitigation measures (e.g. habitat creation/protection within the site (forecology) and scheduling of activities across a large area) are not representative orpotentially feasible in some cases for Scottish Territorial Waters developments where anumber of different developers are involved and where timings of activities may vary for arange of reasons.

Some of the mitigation measures also appear to lack supporting evidence. For example, theSEA suggests that navigation routes should be avoided for siting of offshore turbines butdoes not provide a qualification of how busy this route should be to trigger thisavoidance. Such advice could frustrate the regional and site based studies that are currentlyunderway to address potential cumulative impact. FTOWDG considers that the STW and UKOffshore Energy SEAs should be aligned so that issues such as the cross-over of vessels from

1 Plan for Offshore Wind in Scottish Territorial Waters

IK Fred.Olsen Renewables SeaRCNlWABltf

inside the 12 nautical mile into the waters outside the 12 nautical mile limit are consistent.Furthermore, the STW SEA provides no justification for why it has excluded some constraintsfrom the assessment, for example MoD and civil aviation considerations and, perhaps morecontentiously, commercial fisheries interests. The conclusion that all sites identified in theshort term may progress "if the identified mitigation is implemented" is a critical statementfor individual sites, particularly those where impacts have been erroneously attributed.Mitigation as detailed within the SEA may not be appropriate for all sites and the broadbrush approach as applied by the SEA is not sufficiently detailed to recommend that any orall mitigation measures be applied.

5. The recommendations for further work have been grouped into topics which may notaccurately reflect their subject matter. For example, coastal viewpoint assessments areincluded within "Population and Human Health" considerations along with consideration ofnavigation and anchorages. It is possible that these erroneous groupings may causeconfusion for stakeholders reviewing site specific ElAs, where topic groupings will beconsistent with those of the EIA scoping reports rather than the SEA. We would thereforerecommend reviewing the structure of the SEA categories.

Additionally, recommendations made in the SEA; such as the recommendation fordevelopers to potentially share cables, may raise other sea users' expectations for technicalor environmental solutions which may not be possible. For example, the suggestion thatmultiple offshore sites can share one export cable to shore is unlikely to be possible ontechnical, spatial and temporal grounds.

6. The recommendation within the SEA that short term sites be revisited within two years putsuncertainty and risk onto any short term developers long term development plans. Shouldthe SEA be revisited in two years and the conclusion that all short term sites are suitable fordevelopment be revised, this may delay planning applications and progress until this revisionis completed.

Overall the FTOWDG appreciates the requirement for an overall Strategic Environmental Assessmentand welcomes the Scottish Governments commitment to developing such an assessment. It isimperative that any assessment is comprehensive and robust but ultimately appropriate and mindfulof the overall objectives in order to be considered valid. We trust that the ambiguity between thestrategic, regional and site specific issues can be clarified. We hope that the above comments aretherefore useful to achieving a robust Report.

Yours faithfully,

Or Paula LowOn behalf of FTOWDG